Government Administration and Elections Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: HB-6193
AN ACT SUBJECTING CERTAIN NONSTATE ENTITIES THAT SERVE A
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
Title: AND THE CODES OF ETHICS.
Vote Date: 3/31/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date: 3/26/2021
File No.:
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
The Government Administration and Elections Committee
REASONS FOR BILL:
This bill seeks to ensure that certain nonstate entities serving a governmental function are
subject to the Freedom of Information Act and the state codes of ethics. Entities include
individuals appointed by the General Assembly, a constitutional officer, the Governor, or an
appointee of the Governor. These said individuals are appointed to serve on a board that is
not a state or quasi-public entity, but the board serves a governmental function.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
House Republican Caucus: The House Republican Office thanked the committee for raising
this bill. In their testimony, the House Republican Caucus made reference to the creation of
the Partnership for Connecticut in 2019. Connecticut General Statute currently exempts some
groups established by the legislature from being subject to the Freedom of Information Act
and the State Code of Ethics. Although the Partnership is now dissolved, this bill seeks to
ensure that future entities are bound to state ethics and FOIA requests. Due to the fact that
these groups use public funds and perform public functions, the House Republican Caucus
believes that complete transparency is needed in order to ensure accountability.
Freedom of Information Commission: The FOI Commission acknowledges that this bill is
targeted at public-private endeavors, in which boards are made up of private citizens as well
as public officials. In the interest of transparency, they bill attempts to ensure that public-
private endeavors are held accountable and conduct their business in a manner that is
accessible to the public. The FOI Commission notes that public-private endeavors might not
be subject to the public records and open meetings requirements of the FOI Act, despite the
fact that they were created for a public purpose. The FOI Commission recommends that all
public-private entities be deemed public agencies for the purpose of the Freedom of
Information Act. In doing so, this would make the process much more straightforward and
eliminate the potential for confusion.
Peter Lewandowski, Executive Director, Office of State Ethics (OSE): The Office of State
Ethics expressed concern regarding the vague nature of the proposed language. In
particular, the bill lacks language that defines the term governmental function, thus making
it difficult to determine who would be included in the definition of public official. OSE asks
that the language be more clearly defined so that the intent is better understood, and the bills
provisions are more easily enforceable.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Kelly McConney Moore, Interim Senior Policy Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union
of Connecticut (ACLU-CT): The ACLU-CT expressed support for House Bill 6193. In the
interest of transparency, any individuals appointed to serve on a board or entity should be
subject to FOIA requests, as they are carrying out a governmental function. However, the
ACLU-CT emphasized the need for a narrow scope in terms of FOIA inquiries.
Correspondence relating to outside work not pertaining to their position on the board should
not be subject to a FOIA request.
Michele Jacklin, Legislative Co-Chair, Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information
(CCFOI): CCFOI believes that the bill is a well-intended measure to address the lack of
transparency with public-private entities that service governmental functions, such as the
Partnership for Connecticut and the Reopen Connecticut Advisory Committee. Since these
groups were not required to adhere to FOIA requests, they were allowed to operate in
secrecy while spending taxpayer dollars. CCFOI recommends that the language of the bill be
altered to designate public-private entities as public agencies for the purposes of the
Freedom of Information Act.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
None expressed.
Reported by: Trevor Hoffman Date: 3/31/2021
Page 2 of 2 HB-6193